Cleo McDowell: Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.

Samsung is not comparable to a fictional local fast food restaurant. Both Apple and Samsung would be Mcdonalds.

If this suit was based on the community design, and that design is as some suggest just a rectangle (sans buttons, bezel, etc.), then I'm really curious how this will stand. Because there were tablets before the iPad that were rectangles with rounded corners. Heck, there's a samsung photo frame that looks exactly like the Galaxy Tab too:

I find it hard to believe that was no distinction for sizes either of the radii of the corners. Are they seriously suggesting that consumers can't tell the difference between two rectangles of different sizes?

I seriously hope there's more to this ruling than that, or the system is really broken when somebody can effectively get sole ownership of a rectangle. Imagine if the first maker of a flat-panel TV took that route. As long as you patent a shape, you now get a monopoly in Germany for your product.

No, because they're asserting the SAME community design against the Motorola Xoom.

And if samsung had "inside knowledge" it makes little sense for them to demo a device (10.1v) and then say "we need to rethink this because of the ipad2 announcement."

You might be right, but it all depends on what aspects of the device Samsung had inside knowledge. It seems to me that Apple only gives their vendors as much as they need them to know with Foxconn being one of the very few places that have any idea what the final product will look like since they are the only actually assembling it in full. Therefore, Samsung may not have privy to the thinness of the iPad 2, but had used their position to get access to other features being used in the device.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Yes it is a serious question and what you have stated is no real excuse. Why should company X take all of the risk just to have company Y capitalize on it and then scream "Obvious!!!!" when it's taken to court?

You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.

IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.

No, because they're asserting the SAME community design against the Motorola Xoom.

I am holding out that there's more to this ruling than meets the eye. I seriously hope judges aren't that bad in Germany.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menno

And if samsung had "inside knowledge" it makes little sense for them to demo a device (10.1v) and then say "we need to rethink this because of the ipad2 announcement."

Samsung made components. They didn't put together the whole iPad. How would they get a look at the whole device?

And yeah if they had inside knowledge, why would they not be able to match the iPad 2 in the first place? Who gets inside knowledge and then designs something sub-par only to have to announce they are going to redesign their product to match the specs they knew about before their competitor's product launched? Logic fail.

You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.

IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.

I agree with you to a point. Apple and Samsung are both innovative in different ways.

From a broader business perspective, I do think Samsung deserves what they are getting from Apple. A smart and cohesive conglomerate would never sell their best technology from one division to a competitor of another division. Samsung is happily enabling Apple's sales in one hand (and gladly taking short-term profits) while allowing Apple to go to war with the division that provides value added to those components. If they were smart, they would reserve all their best tech for their own devices. They didn't. And now Apple is doing their best to permanently reduce Samsung to a component supplier. They deserve what they are getting.

And personally, I've never liked any of Samsung's Android products. Touchwiz is a blatant Apple rip off. And the Galaxy S line-up takes way too many design cues from Apple. That said, I fail to see how a Galaxy Tab looks anything like an iPad, other than that they are both glass rectangles. The tab also lacks an obvious feature: the home button. Even the orientation (despite Apple's attempt to portray otherwise) is different. So while I have no issue with Apple's lawsuits against Samsung for all the Galaxy line phones, this lawsuit I find rather surprising and disappointing.

You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.

IMHO, Apple owes the Samsung's of the world a whole lot bigger thank you than using a basic shape against them. Do you honestly think Apple's contract for a few thousand iPads to test the market was any comparison to the risk Samsung and others have taken in creating the technology that made it possible for Apple to earn a few billion from selling their the suppliers inventiveness and investment. The commitments of factories and innovation they've made to the Microsoft's and Apple's of the tech community who can kick them to the curb on a whim are by far a greater risk IMHO.

Gatorguy, I know you are better than quoting only two lines out of my whole post considering the post in entirety was relevant. As for the above quoted, Samsung was paid very well for its R&D with Apple even paying huge chunks of cash for Samsung to build entire factories. That in and of itself is thanks enough. Piggybacking on one its largest customers is of very poor taste. My opinion still stands. If these companies developed a lot of the tech for the product and the product is sooooo obvious, then they should have been first. Following behind and whining that it was obvious makes no sense.

Gatorguy, I know you are better than quoting only two lines out of my whole post considering the post in entirety was relevant. As for the above quoted, Samsung was paid very well for its R&D with Apple even paying huge chunks of cash for Samsung to build entire factories. That in and of itself is thanks enough. Piggybacking on one its largest customers is of very poor taste. My opinion still stands. If these companies developed a lot of the tech for the product and the product is sooooo obvious, then they should have been first. Following behind and whining that it was obvious makes no sense.

But no one is complaining the iPad and all it's capabilities is obvious. It isn't. It's the shape and the shape alone that's the subject of the story, and the victim of the injunction. Isn't the shape an obvious choice to you? Had one not even been brought to market yet, is that not the shape you would expect, knowing nothing else about the device?

By the way, there was no intention of clipping out a part of your quote to make your argument appear to be less than it was. In any other forum I visit or moderate quotes of the prior post are not only frowned upon, they'll get pointed complaints from the admin, moderators and even some other members. "Please, no need to quote the previous reply" is the common refrain. When I was composing my reply it would have been the next. In the meantime a few others chimed in.

Nice to see that Samsung got put in its place. Wait till the US case goes on stream.

IP is not a nicety. If Apple doesn't vigorously defend it - in the process, they will occasionally step over the line, for sure - it will simply dissipate. It will be open season on all aspects of Apple's design across all of its products.

The vigor and intensity of this fight is as much about Apple sending an unambiguous signal to the others in the industry.

No, Apple will NOT pursue this somewhat weak EU community design patent against all tablet makers. This is ONLY about Samsung's blatant copying of the design of multiple Apple products.

I can imagine the key meeting at Apple, where Jobs said to the lawyers: "Enough. Throw everything we have at them, boys...."

And the EU community design patent was sitting there in the drawer and someone said: "Ha, ha! Maybe we can even use this!"

I agree with you to a point. Apple and Samsung are both innovative in different ways.

From a broader business perspective, I do think Samsung deserves what they are getting from Apple. A smart and cohesive conglomerate would never sell their best technology from one division to a competitor of another division. Samsung is happily enabling Apple's sales in one hand (and gladly taking short-term profits) while allowing Apple to go to war with the division that provides value added to those components. If they were smart, they would reserve all their best tech for their own devices. They didn't. And now Apple is doing their best to permanently reduce Samsung to a component supplier. They deserve what they are getting.

And personally, I've never liked any of Samsung's Android products. Touchwiz is a blatant Apple rip off. And the Galaxy S line-up takes way too many design cues from Apple. That said, I fail to see how a Galaxy Tab looks anything like an iPad, other than that they are both glass rectangles. The tab also lacks an obvious feature: the home button. Even the orientation (despite Apple's attempt to portray otherwise) is different. So while I have no issue with Apple's lawsuits against Samsung for all the Galaxy line phones, this lawsuit I find rather surprising and disappointing.

Samsungs(and other tablet makers) problem is that they didn't know what to do with their best technology before the ipad came out.

If this suit was based on the community design, and that design is as some suggest just a rectangle (sans buttons, bezel, etc.), then I'm really curious how this will stand. Because there were tablets before the iPad that were rectangles with rounded corners. Heck, there's a samsung photo frame that looks exactly like the Galaxy Tab too:

I find it hard to believe that was no distinction for sizes either of the radii of the corners. Are they seriously suggesting that consumers can't tell the difference between two rectangles of different sizes?

I seriously hope there's more to this ruling than that, or the system is really broken when somebody can effectively get sole ownership of a rectangle. Imagine if the first maker of a flat-panel TV took that route. As long as you patent a shape, you now get a monopoly in Germany for your product.

I was going to mention that... from 2006 no less (that is if the court ruled solely on "looks"):

But no one is complaining the iPad and all it's capabilities is obvious. It isn't. It's the shape and the shape alone that's the subject of the story, and the victim of the injunction. Isn't the shape an obvious choice to you? Had one not even been brought to market yet, is that not the shape you would expect, knowing nothing else about the device?

Someone on this thread stated that had Samsung tried to be SOMEWHAT different design-wise, then this case would not have even happened. Samsung chose to make touchwiz (not applicable in this particular case BUT I think had a lot to do with Apple's rush to sue) AND to make it look like a large iPhone 3GS. In my eyes, that is unethical and Samsung deserves what it gets. If I were a vendor, I'd think twice before choosing them as my supplier.

Someone on this thread stated that had Samsung tried to be SOMEWHAT different design-wise, then this case would not have even happened. Samsung chose to make touchwiz (not applicable in this particular case BUT I think had a lot to do with Apple's rush to sue) AND to make it look like a large iPhone 3GS. In my eyes, that is unethical and Samsung deserves what it gets. If I were a vendor, I'd think twice before choosing them as my supplier.

... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.

... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.

Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?

Gator, first I apologize regarding the quoting. What you stated makes sense. Different boards have different rules/etiquette.

I agree that a rectangle isn't innovation, but copying isn't either. If Samsung had a modicum of respect for other people's work, it wouldn't be in this mess. Hate the game and not the player.

... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.

Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?

The crux of the story is the background. Apple would likely not have used this ridiculous patent if Samsung hadn't blatantly copied thier work.

It's not always easy to understand the technicalities of individual patents. But this is triumph for common sense. Samsung has 'slavishly' copied the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch in design, concept, and packaging, and deserves to pay the price.

Agreed.

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Cleo McDowell: Look... me and the McDonald's people got this little misunderstanding. See, they're McDonald's... I'm McDowell's. They got the Golden Arches, mine is the Golden Arcs. They got the Big Mac, I got the Big Mick. We both got two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles and onions, but their buns have sesame seeds. My buns have no seeds.

when the prince´s father comes to search for his son at the mc dowells restaurant, they tell the owner that there is someone to see him: He reacts: Their not from mcDonalds are they? Looking a bit intimidated.

... but is the rectangular shape "innovation" or simply one of common sense and expectation? That's the crux of this particular story. If everything was considered, interface, use, arrangement of the screen elements, size, etc. then I'd have little complaint. But that's not what this is about.

Again, don't you find the choice of shape to be an obvious one?

... it's called design. Just look at Samsung's previous pads for examples of alternative shapes. They only switched to a very close copy of Apple when Apple proved their pad design was a success. Isn't this obvious?

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?

Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?

I just think it is pretty weak - the rounded rectangle - and could easily be overturned by an appeals court judge.

After all, the same claim wasn't accepted by the judge in the Netherlands last week.

And it is still in the prelim injuction phase (the first one was fast-track preliminary, today was normal preliminary). It hasn't gone to trial yet, where the standards of proof are probably higher.

Just out of curiosity, but why do you think this will be overturned? Apple won the prelim injunction and now it has won the actual case. What new evidence do you think Samsung will bring out to win on appeal?

Because they won the case in the equivalent of the "east district of texas" and the case deemed valid here was deemed invalid in another court (in fact, the judge said that Apple's design was so minimalistic it became hard to protect)

People who don't like what Apple does aren't automatically trolls. Those with justification for their beliefs are welcome here.

But you have to ask them questions to see if they even have any arguments or if they're just parroting copy-pasted text on troll websites. You can't know otherwise.

If they say something to the effect they want someone to die, benefit of the doubt goes away for me. That shows they're either not rational or they're not really in it for a viable conversation, it becomes clear they're out to spread vitriol and getting reactions out of people.

yea me too...because while the Samsung products do in fact mirror Apple products much more than anyone else (if anyone else) the Xoom doesn't resemble an iPad in anything other than general shape.

Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.

Quote:

"We will have to improve the parts that are inadequate," Lee said of the forthcoming Galaxy Tab 10.1 in an interview with Yonhap News Agency. "Apple made it very thin."

It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)

You can't honestly feel Apple was taking all the risk if you think just one step beyond. Who gambled on designing components for which there was no guaranteed market? It wasn't Apple. Who had the guts to pursue display technology that might not even be workable or successful? It wasn't Apple. Who took the risk of buying land, designing and building billion dollar+ factories and engineering the dies, presses, labs and assembly lines to build products that they hoped to find an expanding market for? It wasn't Apple.

Also, who cut the trees off the land those factories are built on? And who built the chainsaws those people used? And who mined the ore used to build those chainsaws? And who discovered the mines, filled with its precious, precious ore? Come on, are you serious with this crap?

You don't give credit to the inventor of glass for the lightbulb, even though curved glass and crude lightbulbs existed before Edison. He put the right sh*t together, he gets the credit (no comment on the whole Edison/Tesla thing here, please).

Tablets and tablet components existed before Apple put them together the way they did to make the iPad. But it took Apple doing it right before all these tablets that happen to look exactly the same as the iPad to start showing up. You obviously aren't stupid; don't insult yourself by acting like they didn't virtually create this market and are being ripped off by copycats.

Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.

that's...a duh moment and doesn't show copying...it shows adapting to the market...nothing wrong with that.

Quote:

It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)

I for one don't think it looks like an iPad 2 beyond the minimalistic design. My beef with Samsung is mainly for TouchWiz's blatant rip of iOS for phones (the tablets are decidedly different)

This injunction is BS IMO because it grants a company a monopoly on this:

It's not always easy to understand the technicalities of individual patents. But this is triumph for common sense. Samsung has 'slavishly' copied the iPad, iPhone, iPod touch in design, concept, and packaging, and deserves to pay the price.

I don't like Samsung's Android products and I do think they deserve to be smacked down. But how is this a "triumph for common sense". In essence the judge is saying nobody but Apple can make a tablet that's a rectangle. Come on. You know that's not common sense.

Had they slapped the injunction on Samsung based on Touchwiz, I would have fully agreed with it. On the Galaxy line of phones, for example, I fully concur with the treatment Samsung is getting. This however, is not a victory for anything but bad legal precedents.

If this stands, why can't a tire company file for circular wheels or a television maker for rectangular display?

Samsung seems to think it is fine to copy the iPad. In fact, they openly said they will redesign the original Tab 10 the same week Apple announces the iPad 2. They wanted to redesign the Tab 10 because Apple made the iPad very thin.

I don't like Samsung, but suggesting that making your product thinner after seeing your competitor's product is copying, is ridiculous.

If that's your logic, what do you think of the race that's on in the flat panel television market?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NasserAE

It only took them 3 months to redesign it (i.e. make it look more like an iPad 2)

It looked exactly the same as the previous Tab. Just thinner. If it took them more than 3 months to make something thinner, it would have been surprising.

I just looked it up just to make sure and nope. The original (10.1v) was texturized with an indentation on the back and the Samsung logo. The current, re-designed one (10.1) is smooth with 1/2" lip on the top. Completely different design.

My home IP address got banned because my ass clown neighbor started using my wifi to post anti-Apple stuff that annoyed people. I'm betting those messages were nowhere NEAR as annoying and inflammatory as this guy's crap.

Again, my home IP address is BANNED FOR LIFE and nobody in control of this site will even respond to my emails about getting the ban lifted...so how is this guy still here?

Looks like the fairy God-moderators have granted your wish, because justin24 is banned how.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

I know many here is hating on this "minimalistic design" wording in the ruling, but I feel that it's the whole reason the iPhone/iPad have been so dominating. Look, every tablet that was marketed before the iPad was complex, some had swiveling screens to convert from laptop to tablet, they all used styluses, most had tons of buttons, some had handles, etc.

I think what's more interesting about the "prior art" from Kubrick and even star trek is these movies/shows were intending to make futuristic devices that seemed desirable but were straight forward. Somehow, in the months leading up to the release of the iPad, every competitor stood around, some even openly admitted they were purposefully delaying production because everyone wanted to see what apple would bring to the table.

When apple released it, many if not most people in the tech-sphere bemoaned that it was too simple, just an oversized iPod touch with comically sized bezels. People said it would fail because it was too simple, and some joked that it wasn't actually really bigger than an iPhone cuz it was all bezel.

Now, a couple years later, everyone is trying to say that this simple design is obvious and that everyone had obviously thought of it before. Well, that may be true, we can't read minds in the past, but apple was the only one with the balls to release such a simple device, I think it's fair to say they deserve to reap the benefits of their bold move.

Well said. Many things are "obvious" in retrospect. Especially elegant things, like Einstein's theory of special relativity. But, although simple, no-one thought of that before Einstein published it. He rightly receives credit for the innovation. And so on.

This doesn't mean Apple deserves a monopoly on touchpads forever. But Samsung has made a clone product. Like the Chinese SUV that is molded to the BMW X5 body. It's not an original product; it is essentially pirated intellectual property.